S.J.Res. 187Senate joint resolution · 119th CongressIn progress2 votes from flippingEnvironmental Protection

A joint resolution providing for congressional disapproval under chapter 8 of title 5, United States Code, of the rule submitted by the Environmental Protection Agency relating to "Modification to the Start of the Submission Period for Perfluoroalkyl and Polyfluoroalkyl Substances (PFAS) Reporting and Recordkeeping Under TSCA 8(a)(7)".

Sponsored bySheldon WhitehouseD-RIIntroduced Apr 27, 2026Full text on congress.gov ↗

Latest action (Aug 5, 2026) to consideration of measure rejected in Senate by Yea-Nay Vote. 48 - 50. Record Vote Number: 222.

What it does

not written yet

The Congressional Research Service writes the plain-English summary for every bill, usually a few weeks after it's introduced. This one doesn't have one yet. It will appear here when it does.

In the meantime the most reliable description is the bill's own official title, which is the heading above — written by its sponsor, and the only account of the bill that exists at this stage. The full text is on congress.gov ↗

We don't write our own summaries. Everything else on this site links back to a record you can check, and a description of a bill that came from us rather than from the bill would be the one thing here that didn't — on the page that asks you to take a position on it.

Face Value

as placed on the calendar
100Narrow

How much of this bill its name accounts for.

  • Every bill starts at100
  • Nothing counted against it: one area of law, and short enough that length doesn't register.

Face Value measures reach, not honesty. A big bill can be accurately named, and a low score is not an accusation — it means the contents reach further than any short title could describe. Count it yourself ↗ How this is worked out

What Congress did

1 recorded
  • On the decisive vote

    Senate · Aug 5, 2026

    Whether to start debating it at all. Not a vote on the bill itself.

    4850

    Motion to Proceed Rejected

    Every vote →

Discussion

4 comments

Sign in to join the discussion and put your vote on the record.

Sort
21
marisol_qDemoPA-14voted Yea20d ago
Yes from me. The cost looks modest relative to what we already spend on the same problem indirectly.
3
district_watcherDemoTX-27voted Yea18d ago
Fair, but the alternative on the table is nothing, and nothing has a cost too.
7
elena.papadakisDemoGA-5voted Nay24d ago
Voting no. Not because the goal is wrong, but because this creates a new process on top of three that already exist and don't talk to each other.
7
BackbenchBrendaDemoPA-2voted Yea25d ago
Where are you seeing that? I read the summary twice and it doesn't say that anywhere.
Your position on S.J.Res. 18757% Yea · 28 VoteWire users